I didn’t ask you why you subscribe to Redbeard or Nietzsche. Read my posts. But on your tangent, the claim “I agree with X because it’s true” isn’t a reason; nor is, “I agree with X because it’s blatantly obvious”, especially when it’s not. And as you said, that something works doesn’t make it true. But more importantly, if you listen to what Nietzsche values, then of course following Nietzsche is going to get you what he values. But whether Nietzsche values what is valuable should be your concern. I.e., why you should follow Nietzsche…
Or you could say, “thinking everything is about power enhances my power”. Again, conceptually: power is not a goal—it’s just synonymous with ‘ability’—and that makes it a means, not a goal.
When you apply a theoretical symbol for a theory to impose a theoretical version of the symbol you only gain theory. Contemplation is speculation. Speculation means to consider.
To consider you therefore imply what you reason is considerable, or correct via your own thought. Therefore you imply the ability to think allows you to understand, whereas is does not. The human mind, when it does not understand gives a “suppose” thought…which is a real problem for any human to accept…you are not the Creator.
Consider the fact…a body supports a hole or emptiness. The body has to have been present to be removed to leave a hole/emptiness. Therefore space provides the evidence that it was once another body. That body is now held within its space. What holds a body of space can only be another body. Therefore there is another body allowing the hole or space to exist. This body allows the bodies inside of the space to be held in fixed positions, because normally empty space is empty…it cannot hold another body within it.
To correct some of the obvious errors in this thread:
If a thing exists then it is not undone/de-valued or inferior merely because it arose as a consequence of other things. Each “side” of existence (of any/every thing) constitutes its own “reality” and the conditioning and contrasting of sides with and against each other is called “consciousness”, or perhaps “life”.
Neither existence itself, existing beings or the evolutionary process itself is necessarily teleological merely because biological organisms happened to be the product, in part, of naturally selective pressures.
“Space” is never empty- emptiness is a relative condition which defines a degree of absence with respect to some other wider, conditioning fullness. So-called empty space (pure vacuum) is a logical impossibility.
The given dimension of a thing’s “side of existence”, its “subjectivity” is not an expression of absolute or universal principles or requirements of existing that are not themselves the dimensions of other things’ sides of existence. Forms emerge and vanish, and meaning emerges and vanishes with it. The universe itself is not “conscious”, not is man “the same as everything else” (only an expression of a WTP, for example).
There is no such thing as “randomness” other than to mean a relatively large separation between the causal natures/possibilities-to-logic of two or more things.
Reduction to prior states or states of causes or effects/principles will always smuggle in a hidden degree of excessive conceptual displacement and “lost remainder”, what must necessarily be subtracted from understanding and from the potential understanding in order to sustain the reduction-paradigm.
If you reduce a body, then it is consumed…reducing means removing and if you remove then obviously the total effect will alter.
ie you convert uranium, the act of conversion is not a natural act therefore the total effect previously held would change. This would cause an effect which you would eventually notice and that would be through a change of the condition. The condition, whatever it is would demonstrate transformation through destruction as ancient Philosophers explained.
Space obviously has a form of replaced situation from removal and displacement of its origin state…yet its actual state of self expression is emptiness and what was put back into it came from the created outcome. Therefore there could never be a pre-ceding state in the space, only an outcome of cause.
N enables a kind of ferociousness and lack of moral constraint that otherwise binds others in various situations. One need not concern oneself with considerations of other people, general moral attitudes or beliefs, or problems of utility or complete appraisal of a problem before attacking it, when one has N. N will empower oneself to act at the full behest of one’s arising and spontaneous urges and instincts, as N will justify the existence of these urges and instincts by appealing to a “non-moral” (in fact, to a covertly moral) philosophical paradigm of “might makes right”.
When you have N you can “choose” to act within morality/social values or you can “choose” not to act within these. N also has an answer for the more curious person who wonders as to the nature of this “choosing”: everything is WTP and only WTP, we are told, therefore that question is essentially meaningless.
Of course the even more curious person, quite a bit more rare and who does not fall for such a ruse, would wonder as to the nature of that “eternal principle of reduction”. But much like the atom, only certain kinds of nuclei are able to possess the widest-possible ranges of valencies of self.
If N allows me to act without regard to that which seems to limit my competitor, then by definition I have a possible “edge” over that competitor (all other things being equal… which often the are not, of course).
Generally a short term edge. The myth is that when one steps outside of morals, ferociousness is the main thing that comes out, that we are all isolated monads and our ids are simply wtp, which young men think means only yang aggressive emotions and urges. This is confused on so many levels. Certainly stepping outside of morals does give one an edge, but if one restricts this to being some comic book or action movie anti-hero characteristics, it just shows that one has little sense of the full range of things a social mammal is carrying around in its id and what the full range of being human is, even outside morals. (I am extending here, not disagreeing) So we end up with cartoon notions of what the underlying ‘real’ human is, and then find ‘support’ for this notion by looking at the fake niceness of people ‘out there’. So these romantic-distorted ‘ruthless’ models get created for men (and women). Strategies that will not work very well since they accept only part of what it is to be human for most non-sociopaths - sociopaths being themselves partial humans, brain damaged not liberated. It seems beyond possibility that there is a partial truth in their model. And haven’t we seen enough people who believe in gurus because some of what they say is right so ‘therefore’ all of it must be.
Everything you wrote in the above paragraph is straightforwardly false.
There is no “lack of moral constraint” with Nietzsche. He is an immoralist—not an amoralist. The fact that he rejects a particular kind of morality (Christian morality) does not mean that he has no ideas about how you ought to act (aka morality). Rejecting a kind of morality makes him “immoralist” with respect to that morality—that’s all.
Nietzsche does not, anywhere, preach that “might makes right”. It’s a descriptive claim, and nothing more. Nietzsche preaches that what enhances your power is what you should consider right/true. That’s not the same; it’s the opposite. It’s “right makes might”.
Nietzsche does not prescribe you to act “without regard to your competitor”. That’s just straightforwardly false.
None of your points address anything that I was actually saying.
It seems as if all you can do it selectively ignore most of what is written and then to misunderstand what you do actually see. But I can’t say I’m surprised.
Define “restraint”. You will find that not all moralities fit that definition.
What is restrained by N’s morality is the category of those who can attain to his immoral ethics. For those, N’s morality is meant as a liberation.
The restraint Nietzsche proposes is placed on morality itself. He tells the strong man to restrain his morality so that it does not restrain him.
Might gives one the right to act - a right is a formal capacity. Might does not make an epistemic claim.
“Might is right” is not meant to say “might is correct”.
He actually said “If N allows me to act without regard to that which seems to limit my competitor, then by definition I have a possible “edge” over that competitor (all other things being equal… which often the are not, of course).”
I think it’s pretty clear who is the quack…
If you think following Nietzsche means that you don’t have to be concerned with how you ought to act (aka ‘morality’ in a broad sense), then you have entirely misunderstood Nietzsche. Nietzsche rejects a particular kind of morality. The context is that MM was saying that if you follow Nietzsche, you “need not concern yourself with considerations of other people” and have a “lack of moral constraint”. That’s false.
It sounds like you’re agree with what I said.
Quote properly. He said, “One need not concern oneself with considerations of other people”. And that is exactly what I said he said.
I’d just like to have it on the record that you ignored what I said completely.
I don’t think you said anything like that, but as long as you agree with this we’re fine.
That is not at all what you said he said. I highlighted what you said he said.
On proper quoting, I copy pasted the actual, complete sentence from which you sort-of-quoted.
Now you’re quoting from a different sentence.
I doubt that many will see it that way, but go right ahead and pat yourself on the back for another brilliant hermeneutical adventure.
I don’t think that what you said, which I quoted, made any coherent sense. I took it as an indication that you were grasping for the point of the conversation that you jumped into. So, I took it upon myself to clarify—for you—the central point of the brief conversation.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. I quoted it. I repeated exactly what he said, in his own fucking words. Wake up. Go back and read the fucking post. If you’re going to post, and I welcome you to post, then contribute something fucking useful.